Search Posts
Oooooof, what a gut-punch. Firing Sara feels like such a colossal screw-up by Paizo management. I hope she and Diego both land on their feet! :( They've done so much for the forums and the community in general...
That is correct, yes! Thank you so much, Logan! :D
It's been months now since the last response... All of my newer Paizo subscriptions have arrived just fine since then. Still no sign of orders #28156058 and #34967201. At this point, I fear I'm never going to get another reply, but is it possible to just get a store credit refund or something so I can just reorder them? Or if Customer Service isn't able to do anything, some confirmation of that would be appreciated so that I can stop checking this thread every day in vain. :( Thanks for any help you're able to provide!
Good stuff! Lots of cool things in here. :D Glad that they didn't go the path of trying to make grit a thing, and I like the new version of misfires a lot. Wondering if I should run a demo scenario for my group to try these out... (...) If you attempt to fire a firearm that was used the previous day and that hasn’t been cleaned and maintained since then, attempt a DC 5 flat check before making your attack roll. (...) Oh, so guns auto-clean themselves after 2 days! I'm guessing that was supposed to be in "a" previous day rather than "the" previous day. Otherwise, you could alternate gun stacks to avoid ever needing to do maintenance. :) Also, I wonder if it's intentional that gunslingers that use more than one gun have to spend extra time maintaining them all? It's probably not that big of a deal in practice (adventuring days rarely cut into morning prep time), but a dual-wielding gunner will typically need to spend 2 hours doing prep while all his party members (spell casters, etc) only need 1. It might be nice if gunslingers got some class ability to clean multiple guns at the same time.
Since it's been a couple of weeks since the last response, I just want to confirm that I still haven't received any further Paizo packages. Still missing the complete contents of orders #28156058 and #34967201 that I listed out in my previous post.
Hey Joan! I did not receive any Paizo packages on the 27th. I've been checking my mail daily, and haven't seen it. However, I did receive a new Paizo package this morning. It is listed as Order #36246327 (the most recent order), and contained the following items:
--- I confirm that I am still missing the following items:
Plus the following two gifts for my friend in Idaho:
That should be the complete contents of these two orders:
Hi Paizo peeps! I've already sent emails about this, but it seems like using the forum is the faster way to get things resolved. So here's my order history, as best as I can assemble it... August 19th: Sidecart Order 27979554 (SF Core Rulebook Pocket Edition, NPC Battle Cards)
August 21st: Order 28156058 (PF2 Advanced Player's Guide, PF2 Bestiary 1)
September 1st: Subscription Order 28156058 (Starfinder AP #32, Giant Starship Flip-Mat, Pathfinder AP #159)
September 24th: Subscription Order 34967201 (Starfinder AP #33, Threefold Conspiracy Pawn Collection, Starfinder City Starter Set Flip-Tiles, Pathfinder AP #160, Lost Omens: Pathfinder Society Guide)
October 23rd: Subscription Order 36246327 (Starfinder AP #34, Transport Hub Flip-Mat, Pathfinder AP #161)
None of the above items have arrived yet. All of the above orders were listed as either "not trackable" or had shipping numbers that don't work. I've been working from home this entire time, and I check the mail daily. While it's possible that some of these could have been stolen, I find it hard to believe that it's only happening with my Paizo boxes (other online orders have shown up just fine). :( To summarize, I'm currently missing the following items overall:
And the following items that were supposed to be sent to my friend in a different state are also missing:
Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated! I've been looking forward to all of these items for a long time. I'm hoping that something just got messed up and they are all sitting in a little corner of the warehouse somewhere, waiting to be shipped... D: Thanks!
There are a few people who've gotten their order shipped on saturday last week iircaww manI could be wrong but I do not think Paizo is open on the weekends. Seems like it's true today as well. I had given up all hope... but my email finally arrived just an hour ago! Downloading the files as I type this. Good luck to everyone else still waiting. Hang in there! <3
Looks like no luck for me today, most likely. Ah well. Congrats to everyone who got theirs this week! :D
My card got charged yesterday, but I'm still Pending as well. Alas...
Huzzah! This will make 1e -> 2e AP conversion sooooo much easier. Guess I'll be spending tonight throwing some stat blocks together! :)
I might be wrong, but I think part of the reason why it is the weakest is because you’re not taking up an anathema. The anathema are effectively small character flaws/limitations that provide you with a boon, and picking Fury is opting out of that. I feel like it might be fine as is.
Core Rulebook, p.409. Atone ritual. Says “Heightened (5th)” when it should say “Heightened (+1).” If it caps out as at 5th level, then characters above 10th level would never be able to atone. The heightened entry is otherwise written correctly—if allowed to heighten up to a 10th level ritual (usable at character level 20), you would be able to target up to 20th level characters.
1) What is the 100 gp the characters start with for? That seems way too high for only purchasing mundane items. But the "Allocating Magic Items" section says "These are your options. Period." Check out the Playtest Goals sidebar on page 61. The limited equipment for this chapter is to keep parties equally geared up. They want to avoid groups throwing off the results by overinvesting in healing supplies or wasting their item selection on gear that won't be useful for the chapter. 2) Is there a reason for characters to avoid doubling up on ancestry or class? Or is that just a general "we want variety" line? The goal, I think, is to try and get people testing a bit of everything, to avoid only the most popular classes getting tested thoroughly. The "main" party has this same suggestion. 3) If there is a good reason, do the half-human heritages count as human for this purpose? That's sort of up to you. I considered it different enough that I allowed it (my table's Undarin party is half-elf, human, half-orc, elf), but others may disagree. I don't think it makes a big difference either way, though, so I recommend doing what works for your group.
I very much agree that the bonuses/penalties are set up in a very confusing way, and how much more complicated it makes running the game. I get that they are trying to simplify down from Pathfinder 1e's 20+ categories (or even Starfinder's 10 categories plus untyped), but... maybe this particular split isn't quite right. Specifically, I think it stems from the fact that "conditional" and "circumstance" are practically synonyms of each other. It's almost impossible to tell if any particular effect is going to be considered one over the other. And it doesn't even seem like the design quite agrees with itself! If I just skim through the rulebook... 1) Conditional seems to include morale effects (barbarian's Rage, bard's Inspire Courage), stances, trained resistances (alchemist's Poison Resistance, monk's Diamond Soul, paladin's Divine Health), luck and divine blessings (Bit of Luck, Bless), and effects caused by conditions (asleep, blinded, deafened, drained, enervated, etc.). 2) Circumstance seems to include... cover, screening, morale effects (cavalier's Cavalier's Banner), So conditions are usually conditional effects, except if they relate to positioning, in which case they are circumstance effects. Being asleep, on the other hand, provides both circumstance and conditional penalties. Most morale-type effects are considered conditional, unless they relate to your disposition or a cavalier's banner (huh?). Experience, practice, or training via your class/ancestry could provide you with either a circumstance or a conditional effect, but there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to which one you'll get. So... I dunno. I like that there are fewer bonus/penalty categories to worry about, but this just seems to be the wrong split. I imagine the way to fix this would be to split the bonuses into more logical categories, even if they have to add a few more to the list. Ultimately if I, as a GM, don't know for sure what category a bonus is, I should be able to make an educated guess during play. It's not a perfect suggestion, but maybe something like this could work: - mental/morale (effects caused by alterations to your mental state--disposition, inspiration, rage, fear, blessings, etc)
Obviously, any change to how stacking works would need to take into account how that alters the math and balance of the game, but there has to be a better categorization than what we've currently got.
Hm. I was hoping the wording was going to get addressed in the archetype update, but it's still just as vague as before. Does anyone know how multiclassing is supposed to work with wands/scrolls/staves? You can use wands, scrolls, and staves, but only for spells of a spell level you can cast. If a Cleric who can already cast 3rd level spells takes the Wizard dedication, can she now cast 3rd level arcane spells using a wand? Or can she only cast arcane cantrips through wand/scrolls/staves, since she doesn't know how to cast higher level arcane spells? Good update, all-in-all, though. Looking forward to seeing how it all plays out at the table!
My party just came across this as well, and it'd be nice to have clarification. One of my players built a cleric for Doomsday Dawn Part 3 who dipped a feat into wizard so that she could cast fireball from a wand even though they didn't technically have the ability to cast third level arcane spells yet. I can see the justification for either approach, but it seems like this could be a bit more explicitly worded.
The Geneturge mystic connection in the Starfinder Armory lists Reject Augmentation as its 4th level connection spell. The Reject Augmentation spell listing on the next page lists it as... a *2nd* level spell? I'm assuming this is just a typo and that Reject Augmentation is supposed to be a 4th level spell. Either that or it's supposed to be a 2nd level spell and the geneturge's connection spell list is wrong. Or am I missing something about how connection spells are granted? None of the other mystic connections seem to give out mismatched spells/spell levels, but maybe I'm not seeing something important. Hopefully it's not against the rules to post about Armory stuff this early... This shouldn't be too spoilery, though, since the connection and its spell list were already mentioned in an official blog post ( http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkyx?Whats-Your-Armory-Class ).
Haha, I hadn't considered running *at* a ranged assailant as a readied action, but since moving doesn't damage anyone on its own, I'd probably rule that it can/should happen before the trigger resolves. Not sure exactly what that would do to ranged attacks/spells targeting you... Does a spell/grenade/bullet aimed at you or your space get a chance to target you at the new position, or is its position fixed before the movement is resolved? I guess I'd probably rule that, at least generally speaking, effects targeting a space don't "follow," but effects targeting a person do. So you could dodge a Fireball, but not a bullet (unless you got out of line of sight, or behind cover or something). I think I'd consider Reflective Armor to be purely defensive. You're protecting yourself--it is kind of the opponent's fault if they actually hit you, but there's some chance that they might not, depending on the trigger. FWIW, I agree that there's a lot of room for interpretation in all this, I'm just offering what I think would be a reasonable ruling given the wording.
The way I read it, a "purely" defensive action would be one that does not intend to cause harm to an opponent. Dropping prone, ducking behind cover, taking a total defense stance, casting a buff or utility spell, etc would all be purely defensive, and can happen before the opponent's action resolves. If you're attacking, doing a combat maneuver, or casting a spell on a foe, I'd say that's at least partially "offensive," even if you're doing it for the sake of self-defense. For the second case, it seems correct to consider "starts casting a 1 round spell" equivalent to "casting a spell" as far as ready triggers go, so I'd certainly allow the ready-er to take action right after the caster has started casting (thus potentially causing the caster to lose the spell). For the third case, triggering an unknown spell gem is still casting a spell, effectively. If it happens to be something non-offensive, I'd allow it to resolve first. Otherwise, it should happen after. |
